The Negative Side Effects of Reward

Balsam, Peter D.; Bondy, Andy

doi:10.1901/jaba.1983.16-283

Cited by 90 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More accurate discrimination occurred with the houselight than with brief food rewards, and the primary basis of this difference was that the food rewards induced a higher rate of perseverative responding (e.g., responding to the middle key on the second position ofthe above sequence). Luck et al noted that the superiority of conditioned reinforcement contingencies in similar conditional discrimination problems had been reported by several previous investigators, and that the perseverative effects of primary reinforcement should be considered to be another example of the negative side effects of reward that have been highlighted by Balsam and Bondy (1983). By reducing the interfering effects of such perseveration, conditioned reinforcement contingencies apparently allowed the conditional relations between current behavior and previous behavior to be discriminated more readily.…”

Section: Practical Uses Of Conditioned Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 73%

Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of conditioned reinforcement has received decreased attention in learning textbooks over the past decade, in part because of criticisms of its validity by major behavior theorists and in part because its explanatory function in a variety of different conditioning procedures has become uncertain. Critical data from the major procedures that have been used to investigate the concept (second-order schedules, chain schedules, concurrent chains, observing responses, delay-of-reinforcement procedures) are reviewed, along with the major issues of interpretation. Although the role played by conditioned reinforcement in some procedures remains unresolved, the results taken together leave little doubt that the underlying idea of conditioned value is a critical component of behavior theory that is necessary to explain many different types of data. Other processes (marking, bridging) may also operate to produce effects similar to those of conditioned reinforcement, but these clearly cannot explain the full domain of experimental effects ascribed to conditioned reinforcement and should be regarded as complements to the concept rather than theoretical competitors. Examples of practical and theoretical applications of the concept of conditioned reinforcement are also considered.Key words: conditioned reinforcement, behavior theory, observing behavior, chain schedules, delay of reinforcement, concurrent chains A general assumption in contemporary behavior analysis is that human behavior is best understood in terms of the contingencies of reinforcement operating on that behavior. Yet much, if not most, human behavior has little immediate impact on satisfying the biological motives that underlie the reinforcement contingencies commonly studied in the laboratory. People are not born with a tendency to work for money, to like the taste of alcohol or coffee, or to discover laws of behavior. We are also not born with the motivation to engage in compulsive hand washing or to be fearful ofspeaking in public. Such motives, both positive and negative, are learned,'and a major task of any behavior theory is to specify how such learning occurs, both in order to have a complete theory of behavior

show abstract

Section: Practical Uses Of Conditioned Reinforcementmentioning

confidence: 73%

Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Cameron, Banko, and Pierce's study, negative effects were shown in high-interest tasks when the rewards were tangible, expected (offered beforehand), and loosely tied to the level of performance (Cameron et al, 2001). Balsam and Bondy (1983) also argued the symmetry between aversive and appetitive control in basic experimental research implied that parallel negative side effects of reward did exist. Therefore, the effectiveness of reward and punishment still remains unclear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Reward and Punishment on Conflict Processing: Same or Different?

Lu¹,

Yang²,

Hu³

et al. 2013

IJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it is commonly known that reward and punishment are two effective motivators of behavior, little is known about the underlying mechanisms of reward and punishment in conflict processing. Here, we examined what roles reward and punishment played in this cognitive process by using a revised version of Stroop task. Confining to incongruent trials, explicit reward association in task-relevant dimension obstructed the processing of conflict information in Experiment 1, while the explicit punishment association in task-relevant dimension enhanced the conflict processing relative to the no-punishment condition in Experiment 2, suggesting the mechanisms of reward and punishment are different from each other with the possible involvement of particularly used strategy. Additionally, both reward associations and punishment associations to task-irrelevant dimension showed faster response time in conflict processing, which likely reflected the roles of reward and punishment were the same when they were implicitly related to conflict processing. Such results document that the effects of reward and punishment on conflict processing are modulated by the involvement of consciousness, supporting the flexible roles of reward and punishment in conflict processing.

show abstract

“…The positive evaluation for painting was intended to establish an expectancy of evaluation during subsequent collage construction. As predicted, the children rewarded for painting subsequently produced collages judged to be less creative.The most widely accepted explanation for these effects assumes that the presentation of reward orients the individual toward goal-relevant stimuli, thereby "diverting attention from the task itself and nonobvious aspects of the environment that might be used in achieving a creative solution" (Amabile, 1983, p. 120; see also Balsam & Bondy, 1983). According to this explanation, the narrowing of attention would reduce the spontaneity and flexibility of performance that results from high task involvement and contributes to creative performance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Eisenberger¹,

Cameron²

1996

American Psychologist

715

544

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of the decremental effects of reward on intrinsic task interest and creativity, the use of reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. An analysis of a quarter century of research on intrinsic task interest and creativity revealed, however, that (a) detrimental effects of reward occur under highly restricted, easily avoidable conditions," (b) mechanisms of instrumental and classical conditioning are basic for understanding incremental and decremental effects of reward on task motivation; and (c) positive effects of reward on generalized creativity are easily attainable using procedures derived from behavior theory.O bservers of American culture have long noted a I strong emphasis on individualistic values, including taking responsibility for one's own actions, pursuing personal interests, and exploring one's creative potential (e.g., Badia, 1990;Huber, 1971; Tocqueville, 1840Tocqueville, /1990. Consistent with the common presumption that individuals function most effectively and happily when they are guiding their own behavior (see Geller, 1982;Hogan, 1975), an increasingly dominant view has developed over the past quarter century contending that the strengthening of performance by reward (reinforcement) causes the unpleasant experience of being controlled by others and reduces task interest and creativity. Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of such effects, the value of using reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. Conventional ViewThe following sentiments are characteristic of a diverse and growing literature claiming that reward inherently reduces task interest and creativity. According to an article published in the American Psychologist, "reinforcement has two effects. First, predictably, it gains control of [an] activity, increasing its frequency. Second .... when reinforcement is later withdrawn, people engage in the activity even less than they did before reinforcement was introduced" (Schwartz, 1990, p. 10). A widely cited literature review that appeared in the premier social psychology journal, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, concluded the following: Individuals who have been provided rewards "seem to work harder and produce more activity, but the activity is of a lower quality, contains more errors, and is more stereotyped and less creative than the work of comparable nonrewarded subjects working on the same problems" (Condry, 1977, pp. 471-472).The categorical assertion that rewards lessen task interest and creativity has profound practical implications. Increasingly, one hears and reads about how the use of reward systems in educational settings, hospitals, the workplace, and other institutions may do more harm than good. Articles and books written for laypeople and practitioners in education and business warn of the danger of behavior modification programs and incentive systems when...

show abstract

The Negative Side Effects of Reward

Cited by 90 publications

References 39 publications

Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues

Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues

Effects of Reward and Punishment on Conflict Processing: Same or Different?

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About